From Digital Age to Nano Age. WorldWide.

Tag: War

Robotic Automations

Inside the ‘cold war’ at Techstars as CEO Mäelle Gavet hires, fires, fights to force change | TechCrunch


Last spring, founders from all over the world began their treks to Techstars’ Stockholm accelerator program. Their backdrop was solemn: a bank run was in the process of crushing Silicon Valley Bank, and the entire startup industry was on edge.

The bank’s parent company, SVB Financial, was a major investor in Techstars and, like much of the startup world, Techstars had a sizable deposit there, according to sources. No one knew at the time whether those deposits would be wiped out.

A day before the bank completely collapsed, Techstars Stockholm Managing Director Alfredo Jollon posted an essay on LinkedIn saying he had bought shares in SVB Financial. His post expressed overall support for the bank, founders from the Techstars Stockholm program recalled, and came as VCs were telling their portfolio companies to withdraw their money from the bank.

What happened next was two weeks of chaos, according to at least four founders who were there.

On orders from Techstars CEO Mäelle Gavet, Jollon was told to take down the post because Techstars didn’t want to publicize its relationship with the bank, several founders recalled. Jollon didn’t immediately agree, but after a bit of back-and-forth, which included a threat to fire him, Jollon complied and removed the post. Gavet later published her own, more neutral social media post about the SVB collapse.

At first, the accelerator began as planned. But around a week into the program, Jollon was fired, and the founders were told to go home. Under Swedish labor law, Techstars couldn’t fire Jollon on the spot for insubordination, but it could make the entire local team redundant and shut down the program, multiple founders said.

The founders protested the shutdown and, after some negative press, convinced Techstars to reinstate the program. Jollon did not return.

“It was crazy, just crazy,” a founder from the program said.

The shutdown of Techstars Stockholm may have been extreme, but such an intense reaction was not unusual with Gavet’s leadership, according to at least 30 people who have worked with Techstars this past year. Many requested anonymity because Techstars did not authorize them to speak to the press, but their identities are known to TechCrunch.

Employees, founders and managing directors describe a classic tale of power, money and ego battling it out for the direction of a storied institution attempting to change. One source described the relationship between leadership and managing directors like Jollon as akin to a “cold war” in which no one has been spared.

Techstars’ annus horribilis included shuttering more programs, layoffs and an exodus of senior leadership and corporate sponsors until Gavet ultimately revealed “Techstars 2.0.” It’s a strategy that inverts the organization’s historic decentralized structure into a more centralized one under her command, according to internal documents seen by TechCrunch.

Gavet’s new strategy came from fierce pressure to change course after Techstars posted a $7.2 million loss on operations last year, according to documents seen by TechCrunch. But the price of this new path is also high, with cost-cutting measures that employees have described as contributing to a toxic and fearful work culture. In the end, though, it may be the founders who are most affected.

Techstars declined to comment on any specifics in this story after TechCrunch sent a multi-page fact-check document in advance of publication. It sent the following statement:

“Techstars’ commitment to investing in the best entrepreneurs and helping them succeed is unwavering. We are evolving to deliver even better support to the growing number of founders we invest in. It is reckless that TechCrunch has chosen to paint a distorted picture of our business by providing unnamed sources a platform for unverified grievances when the company’s success should be judged by the number of companies that we invest in that grow and thrive.”

An outsider steps in

Techstars already needed a revamp when Gavet became CEO in January 2021, according to several former employees.

She replaced co-founder David Brown, who remains on the board but has since become a partner at a Berlin-based venture capital firm, per his LinkedIn. (Brown did not return our request for comment).

At the time, Techstars was struggling with its future strategy, one former employee said. Should it focus on its corporate partnerships? Seed-stage investing? Or something else entirely? There was a burning desire to be a global network without any concrete plans to make that happen. She was “inheriting a mess,” the ex-employee said.

(Gavet pictured above at TechCrunch Europe Disrupt.) Some employees were worried that Gavet lacked the experience to run Techstars.

One big problem was Techstars’ complex and unique business model, which focused heavily on emerging markets in budding tech hubs. It had dozens of accelerators in more than a dozen countries. Some of them were corporate-backed programs, others were its own, where Techstars invested $120,000 from its investment fund for 6% to 9% equity in the companies that graduated from its accelerator programs. Each city accelerator required local staff, space, managing directors acting as fund managers and limited partner investors. Techstars’ business model was costly to scale, and the hope was that Gavet would give the company a clear direction.

Gavet is French and is known for her sharp decision-making skills and sense of humor, some former employees said — she once made a chocolate cake for an employee who expressed a craving.

But, she had virtually no experience as a startup founder or in venture capital. She started her career as a managing consultant at Boston Consulting Group; joined and was then promoted to CEO of Ozon (the “Amazon of Russia”), where she spent five years; then arrived at Techstars after nearly three years as COO of real estate company Compass, where, according to one source with knowledge of the matter, she had a strained relationship with founder CEO Robert Reffkin over the direction of the company.

Some employees were disappointed in her appointment. They wanted Brown’s CEO successor to have an equal breadth of startup experience as he did, like how Y Combinator would later promote Garry Tan when it replaced Geoff Ralston in 2023, a former employee said.

During her early days, Gavet talked big, telling employees she’d like to see Techstars invest in 5,000 companies a year — up from the several hundred a year it was already investing in. When asked how she landed on that number, she quipped that she wanted it to be 10,000 but was talked down, one former employee recalled. That person remembered asking her what her strategy was and that her response was simply to “scale.”

“I don’t think that ‘scale’ is a strategy,” the employee told TechCrunch. “That was a weird interaction that made me feel like she just didn’t get it.”

But in 2021, the venture market was in a record-setting frenzy, and everyone was throwing logical economics out the window. Techstars closed a $150 million fund that year and opened new accelerators in cities including Paris, Singapore, Stockholm and Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh.

Gavet also started making organizational changes.

One former employee said that around three months after Gavet started, she shut down his department and terminated the management team in charge. Two former employees also recalled Gavet’s leadership trying to implement KPIs based on how many startups a managing director could source. This employee believed this would encourage managing directors to prioritize quantity over quality when picking founders for a program. These metrics were later ditched after they caused too much confusion, one employee said.

“That was just an astonishingly bad idea,” another former employee added. “If you incentivize people to get referrals, you’re not going to get the best companies; you’re just going to get people who are trying to respond to incentives.” (Techstars declined to comment on the KPIs.)

Bear market, new leaders

At the start of 2022, the industry’s pandemic-era growth began to retreat. Tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft and Salesforce started slashing their workforces. The Fed soon increased interest rates, making money hard — and expensive — to come by. Venture firms faced the chills of a bear market.

“The end of the good times happened during her tenure,” one former employee said.

“I struggle to understand how success can be achieved in a putative culture of gaslighting, threads, dissension, and dysfunction.” Techstars former employee

Gavet had just hired Marie Moussavou as chief portfolio service officer, the first of many women she would usher into the C-suite. Her hiring raised eyebrows because, though Moussavou had 15 years of experience at Amazon, she, too, had relatively little background in startups and venture capital. In April 2022, Gavet tapped Aparna Ramaswamy to lead human resources, and she also did not have much experience in startups. She came from Bridgewater and General Electric.

As the year dragged on, so did the tough market. In August 2022, Techstars had a meeting about the company’s financials, two employees recalled. The outlook worried several employees, some of whom started planning their exits. Others believed that “any position not directly connected to revenue generation could be on the chopping block,” according to one former employee who was later laid off.

As these employees feared, cuts were happening. In November 2022, Techstars terminated its entire ESG team with little warning and no explanation, according to screenshots seen by TechCrunch. The people affected included the program leader, who had just returned from COVID sick leave.

Stories of these firings spread fear throughout the Techstars workplace, and some employees started longing for the old days under Brown. Even team bonding seemed to have fallen to the wayside under Gavet, one employee said, meaning there were fewer chances to get to know new executive hires.

Employees say Techstars’ remote-working culture also exacerbated their sense of isolation, and gloom took root in the company.

Troubles in Sweden

Meanwhile, a cold war was simmering between leadership and managing directors, multiple former and current employees said.

During Brown’s time, managing directors were the lords of their fiefdoms, employees recalled. They were economically and emotionally tied to their programs. They chose participants and mentors and worked with local communities. They could brush off disagreements with corporate leadership, and overall, they were in control — or so they thought.

“Maelle targeted that belief and jumped into a power struggle,” one former employee said.

Jollon’s tussle with leadership was just one example. He was hired in 2022 to run the newly launched Stockholm program. While Techstars told founders they were closing the program due to the high costs of running it, two sources with knowledge of the matter said Jollon’s program was one of the most cost-effective in the Techstars universe. (Techstars declined to comment.)

The stakes are high for managing directors: If they are ousted and don’t comply with the company’s requirements on how they leave the company, they could lose all carried interest from their time running the program, which is a chunk of compensation. Jollon confided to those near him at the time, according to one person with knowledge of the matter, that he was worried about how his sudden firing would be perceived, especially among his fellow co-workers.

“I advocated tirelessly for program founders throughout my employment. Upon the advice of legal counsel, I cannot discuss my termination,” Jollon told TechCrunch when reached for comment via phone.

After Techstars fired Jollon, Nate Schmidt — then a Techstars general manager — flew to Stockholm from the U.S., intending to tell the founders to pack up and go home. But the founders had no intention of leaving. Many had spent thousands of their own money to move to Stockholm. “There was no going back,” one founder said.

They were planning to hold their own makeshift version of Techstars Stockholm in local cafés, the founders said. Schmidt agreed to try and find an alternative solution, and the talks lasted for days. Techstars offered the founders a virtual program, but they refused. “A virtual program is bulls—,” one founder said.

News about the program’s shutdown started leaking to the press, and Techstars bowed to the founders’ desire to reopen the program just days after it was shut. The program would continue at last — but without Jollon, the founders said. Of the 12 in the cohort, 10 founders agreed to continue, while two opted to do other Techstars programs.

There was a catch, though.

The frenzy at the start of the program meant that not all of the founders signed their initial program contracts. Once Techstars agreed to reopen, it offered a new contract, one that is now the standard for all programs. It no longer includes an equity-back guarantee clause, which allowed dissatisfied founders to request that their equity be returned.

As the program continued, multiple founders from the program said Gavet and corporate never initiated contact or reached out to them again — not for support, not to check in and not even to apologize. Since that cohort, Techstars Sweden has been paused indefinitely.

Cost-cutting and smelly offices

Throughout 2023, Techstars’ relationship with some of its corporate partners also grew strained.

In January, Northeastern University’s Roux Institute pulled the plug on its relationship with Techstars after two years.

“They are always looking for ways to shrink their footprint and save money. They are always looking for a reason to cut something, somewhere.” Techstars employee

Techstars’ work with Melinda French Gates’ Pivotal Ventures, which began in 2020 before Gavet started, was also not renewed, the organization confirmed to TechCrunch. The Louisiana Economic Development Agency launched a program with Techstars in March 2023 and also decided not to continue, the agency confirmed to TechCrunch.

Techstars’ relationship with J.P. Morgan, which supported an $80 million fund responsible for eight city programs for diverse founders, also began souring after incidents that left the bank dissatisfied, TechCrunch previously reported. The woman who helped oversee this partnership was let go, according to two sources. That partnership is likely not to be renewed, according to multiple sources. This means the fate of those programs — and their employees — remains uncertain, especially since Gavet told employees in a call heard by TechCrunch that Techstars currently did not have enough in its own funds to cover the entirety of the J.P. Morgan program. (Techstars declined to comment on the ending of partnerships.)

By mid-2023, Techstars was operating more than 60 accelerator programs in a dozen countries — up from around 40 in 2020 — and had missed its first-half revenue projections, according to documents seen by TechCrunch. Around this time, Gavet hired Shirly Romig as chief accelerator officer. Romig previously co-founded a digital food startup and was a vice president at Lyft and Equinox. Some employees at Techstars felt that she, like others in Gavet’s C-suit, lacked the in-depth venture knowledge and experience to run an accelerator team.

She and Ramaswamy, the head of human resources, were often the ones telling managing directors their jobs were in jeopardy, with Romig, in particular, garnering an internal reputation as a harbinger of criticism, according to multiple sources and messages seen by Techcrunch.

As 2023 progressed, so did the cost-cutting.

Ramaswamy hired Lerinne Capers in November as a temporary executive assistant to cover her original assistant’s maternity leave.

Capers grew concerned about Techstars’ work culture almost immediately after overhearing Ramaswamy publicly criticize her outgoing assistant, she told TechCrunch.

Capers’ working situation was also not ideal. When her workload once resulted in two hours of overtime, Ramaswamy made it clear Capers wasn’t to “exceed 40 hours,” according to emails seen by TechCrunch. Yet Ramaswamy kept assigning work just as the workday or workweek ended, the messages showed. Capers reminded Ramaswamy that if she wasn’t allowed to be paid for more than 40 hours, she couldn’t stay late and do the work for free.

Yet Ramaswamy routinely chastised Capers over failure to complete work. She once messaged Capers on a Saturday to complain that a task assigned on a Friday after 5 p.m. had not been completed, according to Slack messages seen by TechCrunch.

“There was an expectation to perform around the clock,” Capers told TechCrunch. She considered trying to alert someone about the workload expectations, “but this was the head of HR. She was the chief.” It was also common, according to two former employees, for leadership to contact people on weekends and expect responsiveness.

When Techstars moved into a new New York office in February 2024, Capers recalls that it didn’t at first hire an office manager or a cleaning service. She witnessed an incident involving backed-up sewage in the men’s room without someone responsible for resolving it. Trash was often left over the weekend, rotting in the kitchen, leaving a stench for Monday mornings.

Capers said at one point, leaders in the office asked her, “Why have you not dealt with this? When are you going to take out the trash?” she recalled. “I’m just like, ‘I’m not here to do that. I’m sorry, but that’s not my job.’”

Ramaswamy released Capers from her contract in early February. Capers posted that dismal conversation as part of a four-part series on TikTok, documenting minutes of Ramaswamy’s criticisms toward her.

@capersway

#Techstars was one of the most toxic corporate cultures I have ever experienced in my 10 plus years working in corporate. I recorded my firing, l think it’s something that we can learn from. Credits: Techcrunch #corporatetiktok #corporateerin #toxicworkenvironment #hostileworkenvironment #gettingfired #professional #corporateculture #techcrunch

♬ original sound – Capersway

Multiple Techstars employees told TechCrunch they were fired via similarly painful conversations. TechCrunch knows of at least three employees who are independently looking to explore legal action against Techstars.

“The culture at Techstars is autocratic and punishing,” one former employee said. “Under normal circumstances with great leadership, diversity of thought is encouraged; the spirit of entrepreneurship is embraced; strategies are not unilateral; and both human and financial capital is optimized. I struggle to understand how success can be achieved in a putative culture of gaslighting, threads, dissension and dysfunction.”

The missing managing directors

By early 2024, Techstars’ turnover was remarkably high. Between 2022 and early 2024, Techstars’ chief revenue officer, Europe general manager, chief technology officer, chief financial officer, chief accelerator investment officer, chief capital formation officer and chief legal officer all left the company. Schmidt, who handled negotiations in Sweden, has since left, and even Ramaswamy’s assistant, who was out on maternity leave, is said to have never returned.

Managing directors also continued to disappear, with at least two sources saying that some managing directors even tried complaining to the board and its chairman, David Cohen, about their confidence in leadership, to no avail. In the past two years, around 15 of Techstars’ 35 managing directors have exited for various reasons.

One managing director said that, on paper, Techstars seems like an ideal place to work. “The CEO is a woman who has written a book about ‘Big Tech’s empathy problem’ and calls for more diversity,” the person said. “In practice, it’s a toxic place, run by non-empathetic leaders, as confirmed by the extraordinary rate of employee churn among all groups, but especially among women and people of color.” (Techstars declined to comment on its workplace culture or churn rate.)

In December, Techstars Austin Managing Director Amos Schwartzfarb announced he would leave the company, and the program was subsequently paused. Saalim Chowdhury left as managing director of Techstars London a few months ago.

In January, Sunil Sharma, managing director of Techstars Toronto, was called into a meeting with Romig and Ramaswamy, and they simultaneously terminated him from his job, implied some blame on his part and offered him a part-time position, which he declined. Instead, he left the company, and Techstars paused the Toronto program indefinitely. Some insiders believe he is now contemplating legal action. (Techstars and Sharma declined to comment.)

“They are always looking for ways to shrink their footprint and save money,” one employee said, adding that there is a feeling among managing directors that any misstep could cause one to be ousted. “They are always looking for a reason to cut something, somewhere.”

Also in January, Equinor, a Norwegian-based energy company that had been Techstars Oslo’s corporate partner for seven years, pulled out. Afterward, that program was announced to be shuttering, too.

That month, Techstars also laid off 7% of its remaining staff — around 22 people — to save $8 million, according to an internal message. It later confirmed that it was shutting down more city programs like Seattle and the original mothership, Boulder.

Top Techstars accelerator programs have closed in the past year, including in Stockholm, Sweden; Toronto, Canada; Austin, Texas, and Seattle, Washington.

Toward the end of February, Gavet rolled out Techstars 2.0, featuring the centralized investment committees she would lead and a new job structure and compensation package for managing directors. The plan called for fewer programs in fewer cities — all still with the ambition of hitting billions of assets under management.

Managing directors received the power cut they feared: They were to now focus on helping founders fundraise, while a separate team would engage with the local ecosystem and another team would develop educational materials. A centralized team would source startups for the remaining city programs, and managing directors who led programs without a corporate partner would receive compensation from a shared pool of centralized capital.

Techstars would also now double down on markets in ecosystems like New York and San Francisco. The day Techstars formally announced 2.0, Chris DeVore, a former managing director for the Seattle program, published a blog post criticizing the changes and the company, citing information from insiders.

“Techstars offers an object lesson in the strategic cost of losing sight of your core customer in the relentless pursuit of growth,” DeVore wrote.

His blog post was shared widely, to the dismay of Techstars leadership, who believed employees may have spoken to DeVore.

Leadership had the computers of some employees searched, one former employee said. The next day, Romig sent an email to staff accusing two individuals by name of leaking to the press. She then announced they had been fired — one of them was a managing director, according to an email seen by TechCrunch.

“I felt like it was more a scare tactic than anything else,” an employee said about the public name and shame.

A hopeful annus mirabilis

Despite the internal pain of the past few years, hope is on the horizon. Documents seen by TechCrunch indicate that Gavet’s team has successfully raised a new fund of at least $50 million.

Cost-cutting helped the company end last year with nearly $50 million in operational cash. Those documents showed that it is adequate to give the newly reduced company a few years of runway, according to our calculations.

Still, uncertainty looms: Is the smaller Techstars universe now safe, or are more cuts to come? Two former employees even mused that Gavet was looking to fatten up the balance sheet to prepare Techstars for going public or some other kind of exit, like a spin-out or a sale.

There are reasons for so much speculation: One of Techstars’ marquee owners, SVB Financial, went bust, while another major investor, Foundry Group, is also winding down. Foundry Group was co-founded by Brad Feld, who is also a co-founder of Techstars. The firm first invested in the organization in 2011 and as recently as 2019.

Will Gavet eventually be seen as a hero whose decisions will prove justified — or as an ax-wielding villain, like some embittered employees claim? She could be neither or both. The sentiment among most of the dozens of people TechCrunch spoke to is to simply wait and see.




Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

London's first defense tech hackathon brings Ukraine war closer to the city's startups | TechCrunch


Last week, the UK announced its largest ever military support package for Ukraine. The bill takes the U.K.’s total support for this financial year to £3 billion — not quite the $50 billion the US pledged recently, but still substantial.

But while most of those funds will be spent on very traditional military hardware, a new tech initiative launched last weekend was aimed at enhancing Ukraine’s asymmetric warfare capabilities against Russia. In fact, the London Defense Tech Hackathon was the first-ever event to bring together some of the UK’s brightest minds in technology, venture capital, and national security in a military setting. The idea was to hack together ideas to both assist Ukraine and also to create a far more porous layer between the worlds of fast-paced civilian tech and the very different world of the military. 

Put together by Alex Fitzgerald of Skyral and Richard Pass of Future Forces, the two were joined by co-organizers that included the Honourable Artillery Company,  Apollo Defense, Lambda Automata and D3 VC among others.

The event brought together developers skilled in both hardware and software to foster innovation in defense, national security, and deeptech. There was a key focus on drones and their applications on the battlefield, both the hardware and the electronic systems needed to fly them to their targets and counter-drone systems. 

As most observers of the war have pointed out, this war has taken on a completely new dimension compared to previous wars. Today, drones and electronic countermeasures are the order of the day, as Ukraine has endeavored to fight off Russia, a much larger aggressor, with asymmetric methods. 

Fitzgerald told me: “There are three groups of people coming to these events. There’s the builders, investors, and the military. I think for everyone, it’s trying to convince their colleagues to think more about defense technology as an option to either build or invest in.”

He explained that there were two main tracks of work: electronic warfare and drone or aerial systems: “There’s an acronym I learned from someone cleverer than me, which is that the future of defense technologies comes small, cheap  and uncrewed.”

He explained that one main aim was to get people who had traditionally not been involved in defense either building for or investing in defense: “We’ve got people like the NATO Innovation Fund, the UK National Security Strategic Investment Fund. So yeah, it’s a mix of people who already invest in defense or who haven’t thought about investing before.”

He chose the hackathon format because “the focus is on getting stuff done. Get actual builders, not to just talk about building, because that’s actually where most of the innovation is happening.”

One of the inspirations for the event was the recent El Segundo, Calif., defense tech hackathon in February of this year.

“I think the key thing with military technology is making it as easy to use and as powerful as some of the the consumer technology that’s been built,” said Fitzgerald “There’s the classic line, ‘There’s more AI in a snap in Snapchat than there is often some most modern military systems.’” 

Also attending the event was Catarina Buchatskiy, representing Apollo DefenseAs engineers pored over cameras, Starlinks, and drones, she told me: “Defense tech is a difficult industry to enter. And it’s a difficult market to break into, for obvious reasons. We’ve found Hackathons an extremely exciting way for people to get involved because defense technology can seem like a giant black box of contracts that take 10 years, and technologies that are built [are often] hidden from the public eye. At a hackathon, you have 24 hours. Make something really cool.”

 

Interceptor done

She said the firm had seen “a lot of success” with the El Segundo event.  

“We just realized that if people think it’s something that’s accessible to them [and] can do something quickly and make an impact, they want to participate,” she told me.

Buchatskiy, who is Ukrainian, also spoke powerfully about Ukraine: “These are very real things to me. When I say that I need a drone detector, it’s because I’m looking at one outside my window that we didn’t detect in time and it is going to kill my neighbor. That is the reality that we face.”

She added that it’s important for hackathon attendees to know “that they’re building for someone and this could actually save my family’s life.”

Despite the controversy surrounding defense technology in some quarters, she added, “To be involved in technology is to be interested in a better future. And I really, truly can’t think of a more interesting and better future than one that’s safe and one where we can guarantee peace.”

NATO, in the shape of the NATO Investment Fund, a fund with a billion euros to invest in defense tech over the next few years, was also represented. 

Fund partner Patrick Schneider-Sikorsky told me the fund was set up to back startups “that bolster our collective defense security and resilience. We invest in dual-use deep tech, but the fund was conceived before the war in Ukraine. The conflict has now very much impacted our investment thesis and we’re keen to invest in defense technologies that can make Europe safer and more secure.”

But why was NATO funding a hackathon?

“I think defense tech is new to a lot of a lot of founders and a lot of developers,” Schneider-Sikorsky said. “It’s not that easy for them to understand the problem statements and the challenges and also to get access to the end users.”

He said the hackathon format particularly lends itself to that: “It would normally, for many founders, take them months if not years to get in touch with the right people at defense ministries, and a lot of them are here today. So hopefully it will accelerate things substantially.”

Another attending investor, Alex Flamant from HCVC, told me: “There was a need for people in Europe to invest in proper defense technologies. It seemed from the investor standpoint, there’s restrictions around certain investors investing. One of the goals of this is to demystify what a lot of this is amongst young builders, and really to get people more aligned with the big mission that we’re all on.”

Machine learning specialist was there to focus on drone detection: “That’s in our machine vision and object detection knowledge. Ukraine are fighting for the whole of Europe at the moment and obviously the UK is pivotal to that. It’s essential that we that we ally with them and utilize what we have to help.”

The hackthon came at a time of increased tension around the use of technologies in defense. 

Google recently fired 28 employees after their sit-in protest over the controversial Project Nimbus contract with Israel, for instance.

However, defense is clearly rising up the tech agenda.

Anduril recently moved ahead in a Pentagon program to develop unmanned fighter jets, and more broadly as we learned last year, venture capital is opening the gates for defense tech. 

And in the UK, there is much talk about how high-powered lasers could be among the next wave of weapons. The DragonFire weapon is said to be precise enough to hit a £1 coin from a kilometre away, according to the MoD, and cost barely $15 to fire. 

The projects to emerge from the hackathon may not have been not quite so sci-fi, but they were pretty damn close. How about a “High Speed Interceptor to take down Orlan Drones”? And at least they are likely to be deployed a lot sooner than a laser gun. 

 




Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

Elon Musk accused of profiting from tragedy as study finds X rewards hate targeting Israel-Gaza war | TechCrunch


A few weeks after defeating Elon Musk’s attempt to silence it in court, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — an anti-hate research nonprofit — is back with a new piece of research on X (formerly Twitter). The study builds on earlier work investigating Musk’s impact on online speech by spotlighting how the policy changes he enacted are actively rewarding hate speech posters with increased reach, engagement and even direct payouts through X’s subscriber feature.

The CCDH studied the growth rates of 10 influential accounts that pay for X Premium and have posted anti-Jewish and/or anti-Muslim hate speech since October 7, 2023, when Hamas’ attack on Israel sparked the Israel-Gaza conflict. Some of these accounts had previously posted conspiracy theory content related to COVID-19, per the report.

The 10 accounts tracked for the study (titled “Hate pays: How X accounts are exploiting the Israel-Gaza conflict to grow and profit”) are: Jackson Hinkle, Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis, Censored Men, Jake Shields, Dr. Eli David, Radio Genoa, Ryan Dawson, Keith Woods, Way of the World, and Sam Parker.

The CCDH found these accounts were able to boost their reach on X after posting hateful content about the war. The report discusses examples of hate speech posted by the accounts, such as tweets depicting antisemitic tropes like the blood libel, or seeking to dehumanize Palestinians by depicting them as rats. 

“Each of the accounts showed slow follower growth in the four months before October 7th, for a combined growth of approximately 1 million followers. However, in the four months after the outbreak of the conflict, they collectively gained 4 million new followers,” the CCDH wrote.

Growth rates for individual accounts that gained new followers over the period varied, with the highest growth multiple recorded being 9.6x (for Dawson’s account), followed by 8.3x (for Hinkle), and 7.1x (for Parker). At the lower end, Way of the World grew its followers 1.7x over the period.

X did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment on the report.

The report includes a history of the tracked accounts’ notoriety, noting, for example, that Hinkle is banned by WhatsApp, YouTube and PayPal. Or that the Censored Men (anonymous) account used to generally post defenses of toxic masculinity influencer Andrew Tate, but, since October 7, has focused on the Israel-Gaza conflict. Dawson, a Holocaust denier who also believes the 9/11 terrorist attacks were carried out by Israel, was previously banned from X but had his account reinstated in 2023 under Musk. 

Since taking over Twitter, as X was known back in October 2022, the billionaire has reversed a number of legacy account bans, which included notorious white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Coupled with the policy changes Musk has pushed in areas like content moderation, account verification and premium features (such as prioritized ranking for paid accounts’ posts), this has resulted in a polarized platform where it’s increasingly difficult to distinguish genuine information from lies, and where the tone all too often skews toward conversational outrage (or worse).

The CCDH contends this is intentional and is a deliberate strategy by Musk to profit from tragedy. It’s accusing him of embracing hateful accounts and configuring X so that purveyors of hate speech are able and encouraged to turn war and human suffering into an opportunity to raise their profiles on the service and earn revenue from posts that exploit violence and misery.

Six of the 10 accounts the CCDH studied have enabled X’s subscriptions feature, which lets their followers pay them to access additional content. The report also quoted a post by Hinkle in early October, in which he shared a screenshot that showed him receiving $550 in ad revenue over the course of a month — directly profiting from engagement driven by his posts.

The CCDH said its analysis of the accounts showed that even activity that was critical of these posts — such as quote tweets denouncing hateful content — raised their visibility and reach (potentially boosting revenue-generating opportunities). Such critical reshares contributed as much as 28% to the reach of hateful posts, per the report, which suggested the figure is a conservative estimate, as it does not take account of X’s own algorithmic response to these reshares, which applies further amplification aimed at harvesting even more engagement for ad profit.

Ad-funded business models that earn revenue based on user engagement have been known to drive such anti-social outrage mechanisms. In X’s case, Musk’s erratic behavior has alienated some advertisers, but not all: The CCDH found ads being served alongside hateful posts made by all the tracked accounts. “We found ads for Oreos, the NBA, the FBI and even X itself placed near hateful posts,” the report said.

“Under Elon Musk’s ownership, X appears to be pursuing a strategy of hosting as much controversial content as possible,” a CCDH spokesperson told TechCrunch. “We know that this controversial content is addictive, not just for users who approve of it but also for users who criticize it, too. The potential benefit to X is that these controversies could ramp up user time spent on the platform and increase ad revenue — but only if brands are willing to pay for ads that could be displayed near toxic content.”

“The accounts studied by our report have grown sharply despite posting false or hateful content, showing that posting such content is no impediment to growth on X. This is not unique to the Israel-Gaza conflict, but it is the latest example of the problem. Our previous research into accounts that were reinstated following Musk’s takeover of Twitter shows that X stands to make significant ad revenue by welcoming users posting a range of topical hate and disinformation, from brutal misogyny to anti-vaccine conspiracies,” the spokesperson said.

Commenting on the report in a statement, Imran Ahmed, CEO and founder of the CCDH, said: “The public and advertisers need to know more about the symbiotic, profitable relationship between X and hate-peddling ‘influencers.’ Lawmakers must act to enforce greater transparency and accountability from platforms and to allow these companies to be held responsible for harming the civil rights and safety of Jews, Muslims and other minority communities.”

Musk has previously claimed hate speech has decreased on his watch, but earlier CCDH research debunked his claim.

X is also currently under investigation in the European Union for a string of suspected breaches of the bloc’s online governance and content moderation regime, including for its response to illegal content, which may include hate speech. Penalties for confirmed breaches of the EU’s Digital Services Act can reach 6% of a company’s global annual turnover.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Robotic Automations

How Ukraine’s cyber police fights back against Russia's hackers | TechCrunch


On February 24, 2022, Russian forces invaded Ukraine. Since then, life in the country has changed for everyone.

For the Ukrainian forces who had to defend their country, for the regular citizens who had to withstand invading forces and constant shelling, and for the Cyberpolice of Ukraine, which had to shift its focus and priorities.

“Our responsibility changed after the full scale war started,” said Yevhenii Panchenko, the chief of division of the Cyberpolice Department of the National Police of Ukraine, during a talk on Tuesday in New York City. “New directives were put under our responsibility.”

During the talk at the Chainalysis LINKS conference, Panchenko said that the Cyberpolice is comprised of around a thousand employees, of which about forty track crypto-related crimes. The Cyberpolice’s responsibility is to combat “all manifestations of cyber crime in cyberspace,” said Panchenko. And after the war started, he said, “we were also responsible for the active struggle against the aggression in cyberspace.”

Panchenko sat down for a wide-ranging interview with TechCrunch on Wednesday, where he spoke about the Cyberpolice’s new responsibilities in wartime Ukraine. That includes tracking what war crimes Russian soldiers are committing in the country, which they sometimes post on social media; monitoring the flow of cryptocurrency funding the war; exposing disinformation campaigns; investigating ransomware attacks; and training citizens on good cybersecurity practices.

The following transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

TechCrunch: How did your job and that of the police change after the invasion?

It almost totally changed. Because we still have some regular tasks that we always do, we’re responsible for all the spheres of cyber investigation.

We needed to relocate some of our units in different places, of course, to some difficult organizations because now we need to work separately. And also we added some new tasks and new areas for us of responsibilities when the war started.

From the list of the new tasks that we have, we crave information about Russian soldiers. We never did that. We don’t have any experience before February 2022. And now we try to collect all the evidence that we have because they also adapted and started to hide, like their social media pages that we used for recognizing people who were taking part in the larger invading forces that Russians used to get our cities and kill our people.

Also, we are responsible for identifying and investigating the cases where Russian hackers do attacks against Ukraine. They attack our infrastructure, sometimes DDoS [distributed denial-of-service attacks], sometimes they make defacements, and also try to disrupt our information in general. So, it’s quite a different sphere.

Because we don’t have any cooperation with Russian law enforcement, that’s why it’s not easy to sometimes identify or search information about IP addresses or other things. We need to find new ways to cooperate on how to exchange data with our intelligence services.

Some units are also responsible for defending the critical infrastructure in the cyber sphere. It’s also an important task. And today, many attacks also target critical infrastructure. Not only missiles, but hackers also try to get the data and destroy some resources like electricity, and other things.

When we think about soldiers, we think about real world actions. But are there any crimes that Russian soldiers are committing online?

[Russia] uses social media to sometimes take pictures and publish them on the internet, as it was usual in the first stage of the war. When the war first started, probably for three or four months [Russian soldiers] published everything: videos and photos from the cities that were occupied temporarily. That was evidence that we collected.

And sometimes they also make videos when they shoot in a city, or use tanks or other vehicles with really big guns. There’s some evidence that they don’t choose the target, they just randomly shoot around. It’s the video that we also collected and included in investigations that our office is doing against the Russians.

In other words, looking for evidence of war crimes?

Yes.

How has the ransomware landscape in Ukraine changed after the invasion?

It’s changed because Russia is now not only focused on the money side; their main target is to show citizens and probably some public sector that [Russia] is really effective and strong. If they have any access on a first level, they don’t deep dive, they just destroy the resources and try to deface just to show that they are really strong. They have really effective hackers and groups who are responsible for that. Now, we don’t have so many cases related to ransom, we have many cases related to disruption attacks. It has changed in that way.

Has it been more difficult to distinguish between pro-Russian criminals and Russian government hackers?

Really difficult, because they don’t like to look like a government structure or some units in the military. They always find a really fancy name like, I don’t know, ‘Fancy Bear’ again. They try to hide their real nature.

Contact Us

Do you have information about cyberattacks in Ukraine? From a non-work device, you can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, or via Telegram, Keybase and Wire @lorenzofb, or email. You also can contact TechCrunch via SecureDrop.

But we see that after the war started, their militaries and intelligence services started to organize groups — maybe they’re not so effective and not so professional as some groups that worked before the war started. But they organize the groups in a massive [scale]. They start from growing new partners, they give them some small tasks, then see if they are effective and truly succeed in a small portion of IT knowledge. Then they move forward and do some new tasks. Now we can see many of the applications they also publish on the internet about the results. Some are not related to what governments or intelligence groups did, but they publish that intelligence. They also use their own media resources to raise the impact of the attack.

What are pro-Russian hacking groups doing these days? What activities are they focused on? You mentioned critical infrastructure defacements; is there anything else that you’re tracking?

It starts from basic attacks like DDoS to destroy communications and try to destroy the channels that we use to communicate. Then, of course, defacements. Also, they collect data. Sometimes they publish that in open sources. And sometimes they probably collect but not use it in disruption, or in a way to show that they already have the access.

Sometimes we know about the situation when we prevent a crime, but also attacks. We have some signs of compromise that were probably used on one government, and then we share with others.

[Russia] also creates many psyops channels. Sometimes the attack did not succeed. And even if they don’t have any evidence, they’ll say “we have access to the system of military structures of Ukraine.”

How are you going after these hackers? Some are not inside the country, and some are inside the country.

That’s the worst thing that we have now, but it’s a situation that could change. We just need to collect all the evidence and also provide investigation as we can. And also, we inform other law enforcement agencies in countries who cooperate with us about the actors who we identify as part of the groups that committed attacks on Ukrainian territory or to our critical infrastructure.

Why is it important? Because if you talk about some regular soldier from the Russian army, he will probably never come to the European Union and other countries. But if we talk about some smart guys who already have a lot of knowledge in offensive hacking, he prefers to move to warmer places and not work from Russia. Because he could be recruited to the army, other things could happen. That’s why it’s so important to collect all evidence and all information about the person, then also prove that he was involved in some attacks and share that with our partners.

Also because you have a long memory, you can wait and maybe identify this hacker, where they are in Russia. You have all the information, and then when they are in Thailand or somewhere, then you can move in on them. You’re not in a rush necessarily?

They attack a lot of our civil infrastructure. That war crime has no time expiration. That’s why it’s so important. We can wait 10 years and then arrest him in Spain or other countries.

Who are the cyber volunteers doing and what is their role?

We don’t have many people today who are volunteers. But they are really smart people from around the world — the United States and the European Union. They also have some knowledge in IT, sometimes in blockchain analysis. They help us to provide analysis against the Russians, collect data about the wallets that they use for fundraising campaigns, and sometimes they also inform us about the new form or new group that the Russians create to coordinate their activities.

It’s important because we can’t cover all the things that are happening. Russia is a really big country, they have many groups, they have many people involved in the war. That type of cooperation with volunteers is really important now, especially because they also have a better knowledge of local languages.

Sometimes we have volunteers who are really close to Russian-speaking countries. That helps us understand what exactly they are doing. There is also a community of IT guys that’s also communicating with our volunteers directly. It’s important and we really like to invite other people to that activity. It’s not illegal or something like that. They just provide the information and they can tell us what they can do.

What about pro-Ukrainian hackers like the Ukraine IT Army. Do you just let them do what they want or are they also potential targets for investigation?

No, we don’t cooperate directly with them.

We have another project that also involves many subscribers. I also talked about it during my presentation: it’s called BRAMA. It’s a gateway and we coordinate and gather people. One thing that we propose is to block and destroy Russian propaganda and psyops on the internet. We have really been effective and have had really big results. We blocked more than 27,000 resources that belong to Russia. They publish their narratives, they publish many of psyops materials. And today, we also added some new functions in our community. We not only fight against propaganda, we also fight against fraud, because a lot of fraud today represented in the territory of Ukraine is also created by the Russians.

They also have a lot of impact with that, because if they launder and take money from our citizens, we could help. And that’s why we include those activities, so we proactively react to stories that we received from our citizens, from our partners about new types of fraud that could be happening on the internet.

And also we provide some training for our citizens about cyber hygiene and cybersecurity. It’s also important today because the Russians hackers not only target the critical infrastructure or government structures, they also try to get some data of our people.

For example, Telegram. Now it’s not a big problem but it’s a new challenge for us, because they first send interesting material, and ask people to communicate or interact with bots. On Telegram, you can create bots. And if you just type twice, they get access to your account, and change the number, change two-factor authentication, and you will lose your account.

Is fraud done to raise funds for the war?

Yes.

Can you tell me more about Russian fundraising? Where are they doing it, and who is giving them money? Are they using the blockchain?

There are some benefits and also disadvantages that crypto could give them. First of all, [Russians] use crypto a lot. They create almost all kinds of wallets. It starts from Bitcoin to Monero. Now they understand that some types of crypto are really dangerous for them because many of the exchanges cooperate and also confiscate the funds that they collect to help their military.

How are you going after this type of fundraising?

If they use crypto, we label the addresses, we make some attribution. It’s our main goal. That’s also the type of activities that our volunteers help us to do. We are really effective at that. But if they use some banks, we only could collect the data and understand who exactly is responsible for that campaign. Sanctions are the only good way to do that.

What is cyber resistance?

Cyber resistance is the big challenge for us. We wanted to play that cyber resistance in cyberspace for our users, for our resources. First of all, if we talk about users, we start from training and also sharing some advice and knowledge with our citizens. The idea is how you could react to the attacks that are expected in the future.

How is the Russian government using crypto after the invasion?

Russia didn’t change everything in crypto. But they adapted because they saw that there were many sanctions. They create new ways to launder money to prevent attribution of the addresses that they used for their infrastructures, and to pay or receive funds. It’s really easy in crypto to create many addresses. Previously they didn’t do that as much, but now they use it often.


Software Development in Sri Lanka

Back
WhatsApp
Messenger
Viber